Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Alias]

any animals living in the wild that do not work 24/7 to promote their own and their family's best interest don't pass along their genetic material. What's your understanding?

That doesn't mean they think in terms of the welfare of their species. The vast majority of other species don't matter to them at all - just their prey, their predators and their rivals, each in different ways. Their closest rivals for resources and mates are members of their own species. Social animals have larger kinship groups than immediate family, but they still don't think in general terms about species. I think only human do think that way. And humans are also unique in thinking one way and acting in the opposite way: we think humans most valuable, but devote a good deal of our ingenuity to inventing clever methods of killing one another in ever greater numbers.

[Cats think cats matter most]
My cat thinks she matters most, closely followed by me, then the other person with the power to open windows and refrigerators, then the mice in the woodshed, and maybe along about there, the other two cats in the house.

[LuckyR]

any animals living in the wild that do not work 24/7 to promote their own and their family's best interest don't pass along their genetic material. What's your understanding?

That doesn't mean they think in terms of the welfare of their species. The vast majority of other species don't matter to them at all - just their prey, their predators and their rivals, each in different ways. Their closest rivals for resources and mates are members of their own species. Social animals have larger kinship groups than immediate family, but they still don't think in general terms about species. I think only human do think that way. And humans are also unique in thinking one way and acting in the opposite way: we think humans most valuable, but devote a good deal of our ingenuity to inventing clever methods of killing one another in ever greater numbers.

[Cats think cats matter most]
My cat thinks she matters most, closely followed by me, then the other person with the power to open windows and refrigerators, then the mice in the woodshed, and maybe along about there, the other two cats in the house.

I don't doubt your cat's behavior, but I stipulated "in the wild".

[GrayArea]

Because we're human and matter more to us than anything else matters to us. (That woman probably considers chickens nothing more than consumer goods.)

That about sums it up. We consider living things that are non-human to be there for our convenience, use, and entertainment. Just like a streaming service or a coffee shop. Personally, I find this attitude repugnant, but that changes nothing.

I suspect this attitude stems from a particular interpretation of Christianity, that seems to say that God created the world for us. Just for us. They say that God "gave us dominion over the birds and fishes", or something along those lines. I don't think there is any such passage in the Bible, but I'm no expert. [Maybe someone can correct me if I have this wrong?]

The topic title asks "why" humans matter but other living things don't, and I have no answer. I'm not sure there is an answer. But the attitude that only humans matter is widespread, almost universal. I wish it wasn't so, and I wish I could think of a constructive way to move toward change.

I'd actually say the interpretation of Christianity that says God created the world for us could have been a product of our pre-existing human-centrism, not the cause.

[Sushan]

Because we're human and matter more to us than anything else matters to us. (That woman probably considers chickens nothing more than consumer goods.)
This is not true of all animals: they generally care about family first and friends second - even if their friends are of another species. For example, a dog might defend her pups or siblings against a human, but will also defend her human companion from another dog, but not vice versa. Dogs are a good example, because they form interspecies relationships quite easily. A dog will defend his feline friend from another dog, or the sheep he's guarding. A horse might also side with a goat or cat he's befriended against a strange human, but probably not from his owner.
IOW non-human animals make their value judgments according to personal feelings, but human have a more complicated value system. It goes approximately (with some variations): family, friends/country (that can be a real struggle to decide for some people) ideology/country, race, sex, species/exceptional friends from other species, pets, service animals, draft animals, wild animals, food animals, fowl, fish.

Quite a comprehensive and an agreeable explanation. I see your point. Seemingly humans have become more evil rather than becoming more humane with the cognitive development. Yes, we are loyal to our own species more than other species, but even that is not always true. We choose to feed a pet dog rather than offering a meal to a beggar. There we have chosen a dog over a human. Yes, humans are really complicated beings who think and behave in strange and complex ways.

[Sushan]

Humans are unique among all living beings in their capacity for self-awareness, empathy, and creativity. This allows us to understand our own existence and to make choices that shape our lives and the world around us. These qualities set us apart from other species and make us special.

Self-awareness allows us to reflect on our own thoughts, emotions, and actions. This gives us the ability to change our behavior and make decisions based on our own goals and values. Empathy, or the ability to understand and share the feelings of others, allows us to form meaningful relationships and to care for each other. It is a key component of what makes us human and distinguishes us from other animals.

Creativity is another defining aspect of humanity. We have the ability to imagine new ideas and to bring them to life through our art, music, writing, and other forms of expression. This allows us to express ourselves and to create a more meaningful and beautiful world.

These unique qualities give humans a responsibility to care for ourselves and each other, as well as the planet we call home. We have the ability to make decisions that impact the world around us and to work together to create a better future for all. By valuing and prioritizing our humanity, we can continue to make progress and to create a world that is more just, compassionate, and fulfilling for all.

In conclusion, humans matter the most because of our unique capacity for self-awareness, empathy, and creativity. These qualities set us apart from other living beings and give us a responsibility to care for ourselves and each other, as well as the planet we call home.

I agree with what you have said regarding why humans are superior to other living organisms and species. But at the same time you have mentioned about our ability to empathize and our responsibility towards the earth. Then why cannot we empathize about the animals and their lives before simply killing and eating them? Do we fulfill our responsibility to the planet earth by merely consuming all the other animals and resources as we wish?

[Sushan]

Because we're human and matter more to us than anything else matters to us. (That woman probably considers chickens nothing more than consumer goods.)

That about sums it up. We consider living things that are non-human to be there for our convenience, use, and entertainment. Just like a streaming service or a coffee shop. Personally, I find this attitude repugnant, but that changes nothing.

I suspect this attitude stems from a particular interpretation of Christianity, that seems to say that God created the world for us. Just for us. They say that God "gave us dominion over the birds and fishes", or something along those lines. I don't think there is any such passage in the Bible, but I'm no expert. [Maybe someone can correct me if I have this wrong?]

The topic title asks "why" humans matter but other living things don't, and I have no answer. I'm not sure there is an answer. But the attitude that only humans matter is widespread, almost universal. I wish it wasn't so, and I wish I could think of a constructive way to move toward change.

Maybe the author of the bible had something to do with this universal attitude as you have mentioned. I am not saying that that author should take the whole responsibility. But I am quite certain that no God with a kind heart will just let us consume all the other living organisms as we wish. I think there have been some intended or unintended mistake or a misinterpretation in that part of the holy bible, and that have not gone well for the animals, except humans.

[Sushan]

Because we're human and matter more to us than anything else matters to us. (That woman probably considers chickens nothing more than consumer goods.)

That about sums it up. We consider living things that are non-human to be there for our convenience, use, and entertainment. Just like a streaming service or a coffee shop. Personally, I find this attitude repugnant, but that changes nothing.

I suspect this attitude stems from a particular interpretation of Christianity, that seems to say that God created the world for us. Just for us. They say that God "gave us dominion over the birds and fishes", or something along those lines. I don't think there is any such passage in the Bible, but I'm no expert. [Maybe someone can correct me if I have this wrong?]

The topic title asks "why" humans matter but other living things don't, and I have no answer. I'm not sure there is an answer. But the attitude that only humans matter is widespread, almost universal. I wish it wasn't so, and I wish I could think of a constructive way to move toward change.

The reason why human beings matter most to US is because as humans we come from a humancentric angle. Specific ideas, including religious ones and even evolution put us at the top of the hierarchy. The problem here is that this may lead to a self-serving bias and justification for exploitation as opposed to stewardship in considering our role and significance in relation to other lifeforms.

Yes, we have humancentric thoughts, which have led us towards humancentric behaviour. Yes, we are at the top when it comes to hierarchies as well as evolution, and with that we have assumed a role of stewardship towards us, as you have mentioned. But who gave us that right for stewardship? That is also by us, and that makes that a totally biased decision.

[Sushan]

Because we're human and matter more to us than anything else matters to us. (That woman probably considers chickens nothing more than consumer goods.)

That about sums it up. We consider living things that are non-human to be there for our convenience, use, and entertainment. Just like a streaming service or a coffee shop. Personally, I find this attitude repugnant, but that changes nothing.

I suspect this attitude stems from a particular interpretation of Christianity, that seems to say that God created the world for us. Just for us. They say that God "gave us dominion over the birds and fishes", or something along those lines. I don't think there is any such passage in the Bible, but I'm no expert. [Maybe someone can correct me if I have this wrong?]

The topic title asks "why" humans matter but other living things don't, and I have no answer. I'm not sure there is an answer. But the attitude that only humans matter is widespread, almost universal. I wish it wasn't so, and I wish I could think of a constructive way to move toward change.

The reason why human beings matter most to US is because as humans we come from a humancentric angle. Specific ideas, including religious ones and even evolution put us at the top of the hierarchy. The problem here is that this may lead to a self-serving bias and justification for exploitation as opposed to stewardship in considering our role and significance in relation to other lifeforms.

For me, even this is still a little toxic. You back away from "exploitation" toward "stewardship", but you stop there. Why not complete your journey, and present humanity as just another animal, one of many? Why put us 'in charge' by electing us to "stewardship"?

Good question. We have succeeded in many areas that other animals cannot (or maybe just have not, who knows!) and have assumed the role of the care taker (but practically the sole owner) of everything. And we have not satisfied by that either, and that is why we are fighting among ourselves for more money, more power, more land, more knowledge, etc.

[Sushan]

Because we're human and matter more to us than anything else matters to us. (That woman probably considers chickens nothing more than consumer goods.)

That about sums it up. We consider living things that are non-human to be there for our convenience, use, and entertainment. Just like a streaming service or a coffee shop. Personally, I find this attitude repugnant, but that changes nothing.

I suspect this attitude stems from a particular interpretation of Christianity, that seems to say that God created the world for us. Just for us. They say that God "gave us dominion over the birds and fishes", or something along those lines. I don't think there is any such passage in the Bible, but I'm no expert. [Maybe someone can correct me if I have this wrong?]

The topic title asks "why" humans matter but other living things don't, and I have no answer. I'm not sure there is an answer. But the attitude that only humans matter is widespread, almost universal. I wish it wasn't so, and I wish I could think of a constructive way to move toward change.

The reason why human beings matter most to US is because as humans we come from a humancentric angle. Specific ideas, including religious ones and even evolution put us at the top of the hierarchy. The problem here is that this may lead to a self-serving bias and justification for exploitation as opposed to stewardship in considering our role and significance in relation to other lifeforms.

For me, even this is still a little toxic. You back away from "exploitation" toward "stewardship", but you stop there. Why not complete your journey, and present humanity as just another animal, one of many? Why put us 'in charge' by electing us to "stewardship"?

Okay, it may seem that the idea of stewardship reinforces our role at the top of the hierarchy. The problem with just seeing ourselves as being like other animals is that it misses the way in which human beings have developed culturally. Other animals have not developed in such a way as to dominate the planet. Cats, dogs and horses don't chop down trees, invent or ride in motor cars. While human beings are animals, their role in having greater control within the scheme of nature is significant and it is in this context that I mention stewardship rather than wishing to assert actual superiority.

I agree that other animals do not possess the abilities that humans possess. But when we think more we can see that we have learned many of our abilities since we are far inferior to most of the animals when it comes to innate abilities. The other animals are born with many abilities and they just use them for their survival, while we are born with almost nothing and learn the abilities which are required for our survival throughout our lives. And with that we have gained advancements in areas like science, technology, and many more through ages.

[Sushan]

Because we're human and matter more to us than anything else matters to us. (That woman probably considers chickens nothing more than consumer goods.)

That about sums it up. We consider living things that are non-human to be there for our convenience, use, and entertainment. Just like a streaming service or a coffee shop. Personally, I find this attitude repugnant, but that changes nothing.

I suspect this attitude stems from a particular interpretation of Christianity, that seems to say that God created the world for us. Just for us. They say that God "gave us dominion over the birds and fishes", or something along those lines. I don't think there is any such passage in the Bible, but I'm no expert. [Maybe someone can correct me if I have this wrong?]

The topic title asks "why" humans matter but other living things don't, and I have no answer. I'm not sure there is an answer. But the attitude that only humans matter is widespread, almost universal. I wish it wasn't so, and I wish I could think of a constructive way to move toward change.

The reason why human beings matter most to US is because as humans we come from a humancentric angle. Specific ideas, including religious ones and even evolution put us at the top of the hierarchy. The problem here is that this may lead to a self-serving bias and justification for exploitation as opposed to stewardship in considering our role and significance in relation to other lifeforms.

For me, even this is still a little toxic. You back away from "exploitation" toward "stewardship", but you stop there. Why not complete your journey, and present humanity as just another animal, one of many? Why put us 'in charge' by electing us to "stewardship"?

Okay, it may seem that the idea of stewardship reinforces our role at the top of the hierarchy. The problem with just seeing ourselves as being like other animals is that it misses the way in which human beings have developed culturally. Other animals have not developed in such a way as to dominate the planet. Cats, dogs and horses don't chop down trees, invent or ride in motor cars. While human beings are animals, their role in having greater control within the scheme of nature is significant and it is in this context that I mention stewardship rather than wishing to assert actual superiority.

The problem with the way in which human beings have developed culturally is that it misses just seeing ourselves as being like other animals.

I do not totally get your argument. But I can agree with that by the cultural norms that we have developed and taken forward through generations have left us with the current thinking pattern, of being the superior species in the whole world, and it is imprinted on us in such a way that it is too hard to change it without harming our societies and their societal norms.

[Pattern-chaser]

In conclusion, humans matter the most because of our unique capacity for self-awareness, empathy, and creativity. These qualities set us apart from other living beings...

OK...

...and give us a responsibility to care for ourselves and each other, as well as the planet we call home.

Why do you think this should be — or is — so?

[LuckyR]

This entire thread is an exercise in the obvious, humans belief humans matter the most among species. Humans of various sects believe members of their sect matter more than non-members.

This is a psychological reality with minimal philosophical import.

[Sushan]

Because we're human and matter more to us than anything else matters to us. (That woman probably considers chickens nothing more than consumer goods.)

That about sums it up. We consider living things that are non-human to be there for our convenience, use, and entertainment. Just like a streaming service or a coffee shop. Personally, I find this attitude repugnant, but that changes nothing.

I suspect this attitude stems from a particular interpretation of Christianity, that seems to say that God created the world for us. Just for us. They say that God "gave us dominion over the birds and fishes", or something along those lines. I don't think there is any such passage in the Bible, but I'm no expert. [Maybe someone can correct me if I have this wrong?]

The topic title asks "why" humans matter but other living things don't, and I have no answer. I'm not sure there is an answer. But the attitude that only humans matter is widespread, almost universal. I wish it wasn't so, and I wish I could think of a constructive way to move toward change.

The reason why human beings matter most to US is because as humans we come from a humancentric angle. Specific ideas, including religious ones and even evolution put us at the top of the hierarchy. The problem here is that this may lead to a self-serving bias and justification for exploitation as opposed to stewardship in considering our role and significance in relation to other lifeforms.

For me, even this is still a little toxic. You back away from "exploitation" toward "stewardship", but you stop there. Why not complete your journey, and present humanity as just another animal, one of many? Why put us 'in charge' by electing us to "stewardship"?

Okay, it may seem that the idea of stewardship reinforces our role at the top of the hierarchy. The problem with just seeing ourselves as being like other animals is that it misses the way in which human beings have developed culturally. Other animals have not developed in such a way as to dominate the planet. Cats, dogs and horses don't chop down trees, invent or ride in motor cars. While human beings are animals, their role in having greater control within the scheme of nature is significant and it is in this context that I mention stewardship rather than wishing to assert actual superiority.

The problem with the way in which human beings have developed culturally is that it misses just seeing ourselves as being like other animals.

The only problem with your argument is that it may gloss over the nature of differences. Even 'animals' is a generalised term. There are vast differences between mice and chimpanzees, although none of know exactly what the experiences of any of these beings is on a phenomenological level. In humans it is likely that language plays a significant role.

The problem may be that human beings may deny the way in which they are animals. This leads to grandiosity and inflated sense of importance. Some, especially in religious thinking, have argued that human beings have souls and animals don't. I understand that there was even at some point in Christian theology a speculation that men had souls and women did not. The construction and justification of humans as masters and lords of the earth may be the key problem. We wear clothes, write on smartphones and strut around, sometimes forgetting the basis of essential 'animal' needs, especially those at the lower rungs of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Maslow explained that only after fulfilling the lower tiers of his pyramid of needs the humans will go to the higher tiers. But nowadays it seems like humans are skipping these tiers, and sometimes they are valuing the needs of higher tiers than the basic needs. But this almost always leads to chaos. Recently I heard a teenager committing suicide because his parents took away his smart phone. These examples suggest that we should revise our needs and requirements in order to maintain the balance.

[Sushan]

The problem with just seeing ourselves as being like other animals is that it misses the way in which human beings have developed culturally.

The problem with the way in which human beings have developed culturally is that it misses just seeing ourselves as being like other animals.

The only problem with your argument is that it may gloss over the nature of differences. Even 'animals' is a generalised term. There are vast differences between mice and chimpanzees, although none of know exactly what the experiences of any of these beings is on a phenomenological level. In humans it is likely that language plays a significant role.

All living things are different, both as species and as individuals. The "nature" of these differences is as varied as the differences are, i.e. they vary widely and wildly. OK, it's important to recognise that some differences are more, er, significant (?) than others; they are not 'just' differences, all equal in impact and import.

I see no reason to conclude, as the OP seems to do, if we are to take the topic title as an indication, that humans do matter "the most". The question asked seems to assume our superiority and ownership (of the whole world), and simple asks why this is or should be so.

We are all living things, living in the same world ... but not living in the same way.

I do not think our superiority and ownership of the whole world is merely an assumption. Humans eat most of the other animals for nutrition but discriminate humans eating other humans. If all of us were same with similar rights, either we should have stopped killing and eating other animals or should have started eating other humans. This is just an example to support my point, and there are many occasions like this.

[Sushan]

The problem with just seeing ourselves as being like other animals is that it misses the way in which human beings have developed culturally.

The problem with the way in which human beings have developed culturally is that it misses just seeing ourselves as being like other animals.

The only problem with your argument is that it may gloss over the nature of differences. Even 'animals' is a generalised term. There are vast differences between mice and chimpanzees, although none of know exactly what the experiences of any of these beings is on a phenomenological level. In humans it is likely that language plays a significant role.

All living things are different, both as species and as individuals. The "nature" of these differences is as varied as the differences are, i.e. they vary widely and wildly. OK, it's important to recognise that some differences are more, er, significant (?) than others; they are not 'just' differences, all equal in impact and import.

I see no reason to conclude, as the OP seems to do, if we are to take the topic title as an indication, that humans do matter "the most". The question asked seems to assume our superiority and ownership (of the whole world), and simple asks why this is or should be so.

We are all living things, living in the same world ... but not living in the same way.

Actually, I agree with you and found the title a little strange. I wondered if it was written in such a way to provoke a response. I definitely see it as being problematic to argue that humans matter most, as superior. I suppose where it would probably get most critical is where someone had the choice of saving a human or an animal's life. Of course, it might be a bit like deciding whether to save a family member or a stranger. However, I do know some people who prefer animals to people, so such a decision may not be completely straightforward.

There are people to whom animals matter more when compared with humans. But for the majority it is not so.

And, no, the question (or the title) was not raised to provoke any answers or arguments, but simply to understand the human minds that have attributed a superiority to the humans over all the other living beings.